I have several servers that are capable of serving https web pages. Since they have certificates that are signed by my intermediate CA. (But not Internet-facing.)
I would like to use OCSP to verify whether the certificates are active or revoked. But all the articles I read about this, don't seem to explain things fully for my circumstance.
The openssl OCSP responder (openssl ocsp ...), as informed, is not a full responder, only for testing. So I guess that I need to make one myself? I assume that it's just a CGI script that verifies (with openssl) and prints the status. Can someone state the requirements, or better, show me some code.
2) Can I have my commercial web site, governed by my ISP, employ this script, even though it's shared hosting? I guess I can put the CGI in a certain directory, then have the certificates employ the x509 extension specifying the OCSP URI.
Then each server could use stapling and attach the certificate status.
It seems I need a responder that checks the intermediate certificate with the index of the rootCA and have the intermediate certificate use this URI. Also a responder to verify each server certificate with the index of the intermediate certificate. So another question, can these use the same host with different URIs? Does it matter the commercial web host is not certified?
Related
I'm not quite understanding the necessity of certificate pinning in SSL connection establishment (to avoid Man in the Middle attacks).
SSL cert pinning requires embedding original server certificate in the host to verify with the one presented by server. what is the difference between the server certificate embedded in the host and the one presented by server to be validated by client?
What is that I am missing here?
what is the difference between the server certificate embedded in the host and the one presented by server to be validated by client?
There should be none and that's exactly the point of certificate pinning.
Without certificate pinning an application commonly accepts any certificate which matches the requested hostname and is issued by a locally trusted CA (certificate authority). Given that there are usually more than 100 CA in the local trust store it is sufficient that one of these got successfully attacked as in the case of DigiNotar in 2011. Thus it makes sense to limit the certificate you accept to a specific one, i.e. pinning.
Besides the certificate pinning by comparing the certificate received with a locally stored certificate there are other ways of pinning: for example one might just check against a fingerprint (hash) and not the full certificate. In case the certificate can expire it might be more useful to check only the public key and not the whole certificate because the public key is often kept on certificate renewal. Or one might pin to a specific CA which one considers trusted to issue certificates for this domain.
Note that to understand pinning you might need to understand how the authentication of the server works. One part of this is that the server certificate is validated (hostname, expiration, trust chain ...). But this is not enough since the certificate itself is public, i.e. everybody can get it and could send it inside the TLS handshake. Thus the other major part of the authentication is that the server proves that it is the owner of the certificate. This is done by signing some data using the private key matching the certificate. Since only the owner of the certificate should have the private key this proves ownership. Because of this anybody could embed the servers certificate for pinning but only the server itself can prove ownership of the certificate.
What is SSL pinning
Applications are configured to trust a select few certificates or certificate authority (CA), instead of the default behaviour: to trust all CAs that are pre-configured on the device/ machine. SSL pinning is not required.
Why use SSL Pinning (Why not to)
In many cases, the certificate returned by a server could be tampered as long as any Root (or intermediate root) CA was compromised (happens very rarely). Threat actors could use this compromised CA to generate a certificate for your website, and show visitors their website instead. This is bad. SSL pinning was designed to prevent this in some cases, but there are better ways (IMHO).
Having said that, I don' t know any website which uses SSL pinning so SSL pinning seems primarily discussed for mobile apps. It seems like SSL pinning only works when you can trust the source of the application (e.g. App Store, Play Store) Why? Because if you have to visit a website to get the cert, by then its too late (you might have already used a dodgy cert and accessed the fake website or was MITM'd). Therefore, it seems like the benefits Steffen mentioned are not so compelling, especially when there are better solutions already:
Better solution
I'm not sure if any-CA-compromise is a threat vector, even for banks. Instead, banks and other security conscious organisations will pick their CA wisely, and also configure a CAA record.
By using a CAA DNS record, they can restrict clients (e.g. browsers, mobile apps) to trust only certain certificates when accessing their specific website.
They pick the CA and create a cert only from this CA
They will have a backup plan for if a CA is compromised. Don't want to go into that here, but the backup plan for CAA records is IMHO much better than that of SSL pinning.
For example, Monzo.com (I used whatsmydns to find this) has a CAA record which restricts certificates to only 4 CAs (digicert, amazon, comodoca, buypass):
0 iodef "mailto:security#monzo.com"
0 issue "amazon.com"
0 issue "buypass.com"
0 issue "comodoca.com"
0 issue "digicert.com"
0 issue "letsencrypt.org"
0 issuewild "amazon.com"
0 issuewild "comodoca.com"
0 issuewild "digicert.com"
0 issuewild "letsencrypt.org"
These are popular CAs which people trust, we hope they don't let us down. If they do, the whole internet would be a free for all. The only way to prevent this is to be your own CA/ use self-signed certificates.
Summary
I don't see how SSL pinning will become ubiquitous, especially since it adds more overhead (maintenance regarding ssl expiry, or trusting one CA anyway - SPoF, or emulating what a CAA record does but with additional code/ maintenance burden). It also only supports your pre-installed applications, not websites.
I have a portofolio website runing on a IIS Windows server if that matters.But some people complained that they get "website unsafe" when navigating the website.I personaly didnt get that error , and I tried the website on other diveces and they didnt get it either.
Could have something to do with SSL Certificate ? I didn't bought one ,but I have a self signed certificate according to ssl checker
.Do I need to buy a trusted SSL Certificate ? Or is there another problem ?
On my website i have a "Contact us" page with a web form that users should fill with name,email...
EDIT: I don't know if it's ok to post the website link here, if it's needed let me know .
EDIT: Link to website here.
This is a general problem with self-signed certificates, as the visitors of you website, or their browser, are not able to verify the identity of your server. The reason for this is, that there is no Certification Authority that signed it, thus the browser does not have a (root) certificate that is in the chain of trust linked to your certificate.
This problem with self-signed certificates is well explained in this post
The risks are for the client. The point of the SSL server certificate is that it is used by the client to know the server public key, with some level of guarantee that the key indeed belongs to the intended server. The guarantee comes from the CA: the CA is supposed to perform extensive verification of the requester identity before issuing the certificate.
When a client (the user and his Web browser) "accepts" a certificate which has not been issued by one of the CA that the client trusts (the CA which were embedded in Windows by Microsoft), then the risk is that the client is currently talking to a fake server, i.e. is under attack. Note that passive attacks (the attacker observes the data but does not alter it in any way) are thwarted by SSL regardless of whether the CA certificate was issued by a mainstream CA or not.
On a general basis, you do not want to train your users to ignore the scary security warning from the browser, because this makes them vulnerable to such server impersonation attacks (which are not that hard to mount, e.g. with DNS poisoning). On the other hand, if you can confirm, through some other way, that the certificate is genuine that one time, then the browser will remember the certificate and will not show warnings for subsequent visits as long as the same self-signed certificate is used. The newly proposed Convergence PKI is an extension of this principle. Note that this "remembered certificate" holds as long as the certificate is unchanged, so you really want to set the expiry date of your self-signed certificate in the far future (but not beyond 2038 if you want to avoid interoperability issues).
It shall be noted that since a self-signed certificate is not "managed" by a CA, there is no possible revocation. If an attacker steals your private key, you permanently lose, whereas CA-issued certificates still have the theoretical safety net of revocation (a way for the CA to declare that a given certificate is rotten). In practice, current Web browser do not check revocation status anyway.
I am developing browser extension, that sends some data from currently browsed page to my backend server. User is aware of it, it is intended.
I don't want to cause any user-data exposure, when the user is e.g. on unsecured wifi. So I just want to ensure, the data and the url goes over the net encrypted and only my backend will see them.
Do I understand correctly, that any SSL certificate, even free one from StartSSL will do the trick?
What other side effects with free SSL certificate should I consider?
- will the user's http-client trust such a certificate?
Thanks.
The SSL certificate will do the trick as long as it can be validated. That means that the root certificate of the certificate chain needs to be within the trusted certificate store of the browser.
Furthermore, the certificate will have to be for the right address (URL), must not be revoked, CRL's and OCSP must be configured correctly etc. etc. In other words, the usual steps required to have your web-service certificate validated must be met.
I have an OAuth2 api exposed that runs over HTTPS. Since OAuth2 relies on the security of HTTPS (doesn't do any of it's own signing) I added a note in the developer docs encouraging developers to make sure they validate the ssl certificate in their client applications.
I noticed that some apps make the crt file publicly available or include it in their client: https://github.com/stripe/stripe-ruby/tree/master/lib/data
I assume this is just to make sure it is using the right certs (and not any system installed ones)? If so, is it a good idea to make this crt file publicly available to developers on your API page and what is an easy command/way to generate this file?
Thanks!
When one makes the certificate public this way, he encourages clients to do binary comparison of certificates, i.e. validate the certificate not in a way defined by corresponding standards by building a certificate chain and validating them) but simply by comparing the presented certificate with the one stored in the client.
This method is broken in several ways:
binary comparison doesn't let the client know that the certificate was revoked
with binary comparison the change of server certificate would require updating all clients so that new certificate would be included there. Failure to upgrade would mean impossibility to connect.
Consequently inclusion of the certificate and "straightforward" use of such certificate makes no sense, neither for server owners nor for clients.
The only case when binary comparison is applicable is when self-signed certificates are used (in which case building and validating a chain won't work). But self-signed certificates is a bad idea in any case (due to reasons listed above and some other reasons).
I need to implement a SSL certificate for a website, I've got three questions after some research.
1) I believe i need to buy a SSL certificate and ask my host to install it. My question is do you need to alter any code for the website for the certificate?
2) Before I buy the certificate, the website is going to be built for a couple of month at least. I'm just wondering is there a developing SSL certificate I can use for the developing environment?
3) Or do I have to use self assigned certificate? If so are there any good tutorials on how to create a SSL self assigned certificate on a local machine (wamp) and a developing url site?
Thank you very much.
Sam :)
1) No, you do not need to alter any code on your website at all in order to use an installed SSL certificate. It is as simple as prefixing your desired destination link with the HTTPS: protocol specification instead of the typical HTTP: protocol. However, if you want to determine if your site visitor is using an encrypted page before they do something, such as submit a web form with potentially sensitive data, then depending on what you are developing your site in, you will need to detect if the current page request has been sent over HTTP or HTTPS, then if it is an HTTP requested page, you probably want to redirect the page request to the HTTPS version before proceeding.
2) Other than creating your own "self signed" certificate (more on this in #3), no your only option for a publicly valid SSL certificate is to obtain one from a publicly recognized Certificate Authority (CA). Long story short, a certificate of the same key length using the same encryption standard supported by your server and visitor's web browser, is no stronger or weaker regardless of vendor for purposes of encryption. So you can simply shop by price for your SSL certs. I have no affiliation with GoDaddy, but have been using them for years for public SSL certificates.
3) You certainly can create your own self signed certificate. The methods for doing this vary based on your host server and version. The limitation to a self signed certificate, is that if you go to share this with anyone, you get that warning message from your browser that the certificate is not published from a verifiable source. In most current browsers, it looks like a big scary message that something is wrong and they attempt to warn your user away from doing this. However, of course, there is certainly nothing wrong with using a self signed certificate. This is obviously true for your own development uses. Even a self signed certificate of the same key length and encryption method is as cryptographically secure as a commercially provided certificate. If you want to use a self signed certificate, just search for instruction for doing that for your server OS and version for details. Once it is installed, you will get the warning from your browser when you try to browse to a page over HTTPS. Your browser should show you an option to permanently remember and accept your self signed certificate, after which you will no longer see that warning while that certificate remains installed and valid.